What do you guys think about this rolex? 👍👎

[Yammx125]

What's your opinion on this watch guys thanks
Pictures are all same watch hard to photograph.

[GLADIATOR]

I am pretty sure its genuine.
You can see the LEC in photo 2 (that usually concerns me) - But other things all point to good.
What is price?
Adam

[Dishpro01]

I think it looks real. All the things I look for seem ok. CG shape, surround thickness, reahuat engraving, SEL fit, Bezel finish. But there is something I can't put my finger on. GLADIATOR is the real expert.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[nivman]

It looks like there's too much space between the words on the dial ("OYSTER PERPETUAL DATE", "SUPERLATIVE CHRONOMETER", and "OFFICIALLY CERTIFIED"). Were some dial variations like that?

Also, I'm questioning the hands and cyclops.

[kirikenz]

Originally Posted by nivman

Also, I'm questioning the hands and cyclops.

I thought no reason to be suspicious of the cyclops until you mentioned it. While the magnification is in an acceptable range, it does look damaged, you can see a line/scratches near the top and center. While it's true sapphire can be scratched by diamonds or chipped, I wouldn't expect it to be damaged in the way it appears to be, leading me to suspect it's mineral glass. Perhaps someone else knows better.

[nivman]

Originally Posted by kirikenz

I thought no reason to be suspicious of the cyclops until you mentioned it. While the magnification is in an acceptable range, it does look damaged, you can see a line/scratches near the top and center. While it's true sapphire can be scratched by diamonds or chipped, I wouldn't expect it to be damaged in the way it appears to be, leading me to suspect it's mineral glass. Perhaps someone else knows better.

The cyclops also doesn't seem to have the antireflective coating effect. Lastly, the date is not centered in the window. I would pass on this watch.

[beshannon]

Originally Posted by kirikenz

I thought no reason to be suspicious of the cyclops until you mentioned it. While the magnification is in an acceptable range, it does look damaged, you can see a line/scratches near the top and center. While it's true sapphire can be scratched by diamonds or chipped, I wouldn't expect it to be damaged in the way it appears to be, leading me to suspect it's mineral glass. Perhaps someone else knows better.

And the damage appears different between the two images?

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by beshannon

And the damage appears different between the two images?

Looks the same to me. A little lighting artifact is on the bracelet picture, but the scrape on the bubble is consistent.

FWIW, a lot of things will scratch sapphire. Other corrundum, for one, which can be found in some common places.

[breitlings]

I think its real but beat up. Triangle on bezel has some scratches as well

[Yammx125]

Yes the cyclops is scratched
It's had a bad polish but I'm still not 100%
It functions correctly at each crown position
It's the dial print size spacing that has me puzzled ��

[GLADIATOR]

Originally Posted by Yammx125

Yes the cyclops is scratched
It's had a bad polish but I'm still not 100%
It functions correctly at each crown position
It's the dial print size spacing that has me puzzled ��

As I said earlier, I am pretty sure its all good. I have some good reasons to say that.
Its interesting in that latest photo LEC is not visible (which pleases me)

A

[Yammx125]

[usrudiver932]

Plus the top of the II is cut off on the top and the bottom of the crown at 12 o’clock seems too football shaped. Plus looking at the rehaut it seems not centered on the R and O it’s off more to one side, look at the O at the 7 marker or better yet the X is not centered with the minute marker???

[BUZITO1974]

Be careful


Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

[Yammx125]

Yes it's scratched photo makes it look way worse

[freefly]

Apart from the noted scratched cyclops, it looks fine from here.

[Lime]

I would walk